ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
Instrument for Assessment of Neurodegenerative Aphasia in Indonesia or
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disorder causing progressive language impairment. Early diagnosis is crucial for treatment planning, yet no standardized assessment exists for Indonesian speakers. Objective: This study describes the initial development of the Methods: IRFANI was designed to assess syntax, motor speech, semantics, and phonology, following Gorno-Tempini et al. (2011) diagnostic criteria. The blueprint covered key domains, including confrontation naming (nouns/verbs), sentence production/comprehension, single-word comprehension, semantic association, and repetition tasks. Verbal stimuli were selected based on expert input and Indonesian word frequency lists, while custom black-and-white illustrations ensured linguistic and cultural relevance. Five neurobehavioral neurologists assessed content validity using Aiken's Content Validity Index (CVI). A pilot study was conducted with 30 participants diverse in age, sex, education, and ethnicity. Results: Expert consultations refined the test blueprint. Qualitative analysis identified ambiguous images, multiple correct answers, and unclear phrasing in naming and sentence tasks. Issues included visually similar images and ambiguous sentence structures. Quantitative validation (CVI = 0.9) confirmed strong expert agreement, with items scoring below 0.8 excluded. The pilot study demonstrated good reliability (0.923) and provided insights for further refinement. Conclusions: IRFANI was systematically developed through expert validation, pilot testing, and iterative refinement, ensuring clarity and strong content validity. Further studies are needed to confirm its construct validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.